3 ms·

Yes, cause the most crucial ones are technologies about getting things into orbit and sustaining life in obit, creating habitable environments and so on. Wheth

Yes, cause the most crucial ones are technologies about getting things into orbit and sustaining life in obit, creating habitable environments and so on. Whether on a planet or in space those challenges aren't much different and whatever you gain as knowledge on a space station you can apply to a moon base later on. Furthermore, the challenge of building a space station and not suddenly run into budgeting or construction issues is many many many many times higher when it comes to establishing something on the moon. Each new learning that could be done on the space station will come as at a much higher cost doing something we don't have good enough technology to do with-in a realistic comfort zone. If you like me believe that technology is the primary forcemultiplier for any realistic development into space the trick is to focus on developing within our comfort zone, until we it within our comfort zone to risk a next step. Then you will actually end up with a space station much faster (and a mars station and an out ring station and a space ark etc) because of the exponential force of technology.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
If you're talking about some kind of self-sustaining station, then space wouldn't be where you'd go first anyway. You'd want to establish a self-sustaining colony in the antarctic, where conditions are significantly more favorable and yet still incredibly hostile. And if you aren't... haven't we already done that with ISS?
- ThomPete 9y ago
  There are already closed off habitats made to simulate living without outside assistance. It's the combination of a lot of things that are relevant here including zero-g not just any single one of them. We haven't made space travel safe enough yet, we haven't made enough progress on habitats in space. Plenty of things to figure out and a space station is by any means a much more effective way to do that both financially, when it comes to speed of iteration and ability to course correct and focus on improvements.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago

If you're talking about some kind of self-sustaining station, then space wouldn't be where you'd go first anyway. You'd want to establish a self-sustaining colony in the antarctic, where conditions are significantly more favorable and yet still incredibly hostile. And if you aren't... haven't we already done that with ISS?

ThomPete 9y ago
There are already closed off habitats made to simulate living without outside assistance. It's the combination of a lot of things that are relevant here including zero-g not just any single one of them. We haven't made space travel safe enough yet, we haven't made enough progress on habitats in space. Plenty of things to figure out and a space station is by any means a much more effective way to do that both financially, when it comes to speed of iteration and ability to course correct and focus on improvements.